Handicap Distance Tasks

Interesting concept. Love to try it. Two concerns:

1. Traffic. I've done simultaneous starts in local contests and the jockeying that goes on to be on top of the gaggle when the gate opens can be exciting. So can the first few thermals as all competitors are stacked in closely together, rather than spread out over hundreds of feet or more as occurs today when start times are minutes apart.

2. Barrel size. Andy raised the issue of blue holes, T-storms, and other localized wx. I'm not overly excited about the "big area" tasks we currently call in the U.S. But based on experience back in the day, I'm not excited about returning to assigned tasks all the time, either (sorry, Sean). I'd rather fly an area task (or this new task with a larger barrel) than lose the entire day because the TP (or the tiny barrel for the higher-performing gliders) is in a bad place weatherwise. It's all well and good to say we'll make changes when showers are in the forecast but in the real world, if we could forecast showers accurately, task calling would be a lot simpler.

But, yeah, let's try this at a few regionals (east and west) and see how it goes. Integrating this with Winscore seems like the biggest obstacle. It's always risky to make changes to software and Winscore hasn't been immune to the bugs that can creep in when this occurs.

Chip Bearden

scoring software limitations should not be defining the tasks that we fly...

I agree scoring software should not be a constraint on task definition. But to a certain extent, it is. As much as corralling someone to develop and read TP film in the old days was a hassle, so is finding someone who can competently make Winscore do what it's supposed to do. And the frequent rule changes in the past did lead inevitably (to anyone who works in software development) to bugs being introduced. Recently I sense there's been more stability but a new task would complicate matters. It shouldn't stop us from considering this interesting concept but the gap between theory and practice exists here, too, as elsewhere in life.

Chip Bearden

Chip,

In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is implemented via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK. I'm scoring at the Region 8 this year and we're considering inviting the contestants to try it. Just a thought for the moment.

I'm planning on trying a local club contest to become familiar with the software.

Mike

At 02:42 05 February 2016, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Chip,

In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is
implemented
via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK. I'm scoring at the Region 8
this year and we're considering inviting the contestants to try it. Just
a
thought for the moment.

I'm planning on trying a local club contest to become familiar with the
software.

Mike

PM me if you need any assistance. I expect that your pilots will love it.
We task this way every weekend throughout the season which is good way to
get into practice with the task and scoring process.

Jim

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 9:42:42 PM UTC-5, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Chip,

In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is implemented via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK.

I understood that conceptually but probably not in sufficient detail. I'm curious to know how that would work under the SSA scoring system. Would the task-based distances just be imported into Winscore as a file to be scored using the existing rules for min distance, devaluation, airport landing bonus, etc.? Or would SeeYou score the entire day using SSA formulae, and the points imported into Winscore to be added to the other days? Not sure Winscore is set up for either of these, or if you could do at least the former with a simple script. Or would you just score the whole contest using SeeYou, with or without SSA scoring formulae? There are more manual steps involved in using Winscore than most pilots realize but I don't know how complex it would be to integrate with SeeYou, if that's what would be required. My version of SeeYou is ancient and it's been 5+ years since I scored with Winscore.

Chip Bearden

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 5:59:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 9:42:42 PM UTC-5, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Chip,

In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is implemented via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK.

I understood that conceptually but probably not in sufficient detail. I'm curious to know how that would work under the SSA scoring system. Would the task-based distances just be imported into Winscore as a file to be scored using the existing rules for min distance, devaluation, airport landing bonus, etc.? Or would SeeYou score the entire day using SSA formulae, and the points imported into Winscore to be added to the other days? Not sure Winscore is set up for either of these, or if you could do at least the former with a simple script. Or would you just score the whole contest using SeeYou, with or without SSA scoring formulae? There are more manual steps involved in using Winscore than most pilots realize but I don't know how complex it would be to integrate with SeeYou, if that's what would be required. My version of SeeYou is ancient and it's been 5+ years since I scored with Winscore.

Chip Bearden

Chip,

I think if the handicapper is used, the scoring for the day would have to be done in SeeYou and that would be the score for the day. I was a (new) scorer last year at Region 8 and am planning on doing it again this year, but have to admit, I'm still a novice at WinScore and it's finer nuances.

Mike

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 5:59:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 9:42:42 PM UTC-5, SoaringXCellence wrote:
Chip,

In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is implemented via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK.

I understood that conceptually but probably not in sufficient detail. I'm curious to know how that would work under the SSA scoring system. Would the task-based distances just be imported into Winscore as a file to be scored using the existing rules for min distance, devaluation, airport landing bonus, etc.? Or would SeeYou score the entire day using SSA formulae, and the points imported into Winscore to be added to the other days? Not sure Winscore is set up for either of these, or if you could do at least the former with a simple script. Or would you just score the whole contest using SeeYou, with or without SSA scoring formulae? There are more manual steps involved in using Winscore than most pilots realize but I don't know how complex it would be to integrate with SeeYou, if that's what would be required. My version of SeeYou is ancient and it's been 5+ years since I scored with Winscore.

Chip Bearden

I believe you would score the whole contest in SeeYou, using the scoring script of your choice. It should be be possible to write (or modify) a script to implement the US/SSA rules, as Winscore does. The difference here is that each flight log has to be scored against a task that is unique to that glider. Jim's post processor appends that particular task into that particular log (in theory automatically), which is then evaluated by SeeYou for violations, speed, etc. Since the handicapping is done with the task distances, speed is speed - it doesn't need to be adjusted for other than violations.. Points assignment would be done by the SeeYou scoring script to suit your taste in rules.

The big question I see on this task is, just how much benefit do we get relative to the turn area task, the MAT and the long MAT, in allowing gliders of different performance to fly together? And is it worth the costs, complexity, snafus, and learning curve for a task with quite different tasking considerations for CD and strategic considerations for pilots?

Issue 1: Do you get credit for extra distance? Flown UK style, each glider turns exactly at one boundary, and does not get credit for extra distance either by flying to the side of the courseline, or deeper into the cylinder.

US style, we give points for extra distance into all turn cylinders, even on assigned tasks. That is, in my opinion, a highly desirable difference relative to international rules where anything past the first fix in a turn is wasted. You can take your time, look out for other gliders, and approach the turnpoint in a leisurely way, rather than perfect the acrobatics of getting exactly one fix in the cylinder.

However, if we keep that aspect, it means we're even closer to a turn area task. You can keep going in any turn point so long as the lift is really good. You can also follow a cloudstreet that takes you a few miles to the right or left of courseline without paying a penalty, as you get credit for the extra distance covered.

So, one big question if this is to be implemented in the US: Do you still get credit for extra distance flown in the turnpoints? Or do we go back to one fix in and you're done? If the latter, are you ready to explain the quite large procedural and tactical differences to the pilots? Quick, in a turnpoint with 15 mile radius, is it worth being 3 miles to the right of course to follow the cloudstreet, but go a bit extra distance, or is it better to bash through the blue to hit the exact turn "point?"

Issue 2: This smells a lot like a turn area task. The difference, of course, is that if turn 1 is great and turn 2 is horrible, you can't keep going in turn 1, you have to turn where you turn. And you don't have any of the fiddling to figure out how to avoid arriving home undertime. But these are small differences. Are they worth the complexity of a new task type, with a new set of strategic considerations?

The downside: Each glider has it's own assigned "turnpoint," and it's easy for those not to be fair. Ridges have big gaps and transitions. Suppose the low performance gliders don't have to cross the gap at all, the high performance gliders have to thermal off in the blue for 30 miles... and don't have the option of making up that distance at another turnpoint. Or suppose the low performance gliders' "turnpoint" is 3/4 across the gap, but the high performace glider's turnpoint is across the gap, 15 miles down the next ridge and back again. The lower performance now does not have the option of completing the transition and using the ridge, or not bothering with the transition and making up the distance later. In flatland, blue holes, lakes, sea breeze fronts, overdevelopment, etc. all play a similar role.

On really tough days, the lower performance gliders will have a lot of latitude where to go to achieve the turnpoint, while the high performance gliders have to go to one exact spot, perhaps where it's raining.

With an assigned task, the task setters spend a lot of time making sure each turnpoint is achievable. With turn area or MAT tasks, each pilot takes a lot of time to make sure his/her turnpoint is achievable. With a handicap distance task, it's going to be much harder to make sure the task is fair.

That consideration will likely limit the task use to flat terrain and homogenous conditions.

Another strategic question that is likely to arise: The ideal way to fly a turn area task is to go 5 miles further in each turn area, then catch up the gaggle again. This task pretty much forces the lower performance gliders to be markers on every leg.

Again, we have the turn area task, and the long MAT, to allow racing among gliders of very different handicap. Turn area tasks with many smaller areas give quite a lot of racing feeling. The question is, just what benefit does one get from the handicap distance task relative to these, and is it worth the substantial costs?

PS, UK pilots who wish to do handicapped racing might try the US long MAT some day. Reacap: You fly around a fully assigned set of turnpoints, but with minimum time rules. After x hours, you stop flying turnpoints and come home. This one keeps everyone on exactly the same course, just letting the lower performance gliders skip the last turnpoints. It has pros and cons too, but if you're looking for task types that allow handicap racing, it's worth a try.

John Cochrane BB

At 18:30 04 February 2016, wrote:
Interesting concept. Love to try it. Two concerns:

1. Traffic. I've done simultaneous starts in local contests and the
jockeyi=
ng that goes on to be on top of the gaggle when the gate opens can be
excit=
ing. So can the first few thermals as all competitors are stacked in
closel=
y together, rather than spread out over hundreds of feet or more as
occurs
=
today when start times are minutes apart.

In UK regionals we do not have regatta starts. Pilots start when they want
to. Human nature is that they tend to end up as regatta starts!